>>20998541I just drank another pint of guinness so this might sound a bit like a ramble. I'm dizzy af, I don't hold alcohol well
>companies being the sole producer leads to bad performancethat tends to be true. that is why I said *can be ok* as a company will only be the sole producer in a given field when they're doing a good enough job. the second they become inefficient, competitors will show up.
So it's only good when they're being efficient. the only way an inefficient producer can stay as the sole producer in a given field is through government intervention.
>thing about standard oil and other "monopolies" during a supposed period of low regulationsstandard oil never quite achieved a steady monopoly position and when the anti-trust laws were created, their market share had already dropped by more than 20% due to natural competition in the free market. I highly suggest the article "100 Years of Myths about Standard Oil" on this subject. their attempts of "predatory pricing" stopped quite quiclkly too as that proved out to be a reeeeeally dumb strategy. they reached a peak of 90% market share and it naturally eroded from there.
tldr standard oil's market share was eroded naturally by competitors on the free market, not by anti-trust laws which are dumb beyond belief. just look at what's happening with homegate, they're cutting their balls.
finally, you've only brought up one example of "monopoly" (that being standard oil) and that eroded fairly quickly without the need of government intervention. standard oil operated brilliantly too desu, so not really an issue from them. the other company you mentioned never really was a monopoly and went defunct before any anti-trust law was passed so not really a valid example to include there.
you've not really shown empirically an increase in monpolies
to close this, it seems to me that youßre going about this from an empirical perspective which is fine but I prefer rational discussion rather than empirical ones.
